User talk:Aholland
--Alan del Beccio 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) New Articles When writing new articles, especially those based on real world people, places or events, please limit the "real world" information to the bare minimum, but especially write it in terms of how it was referenced in Star Trek, being sure to cite your sources and so forth. I suggest that you may wish to check out some of the links posted above in your welcome message. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 04:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *Greetings! Please make sure to read Memory Alpha:Manual of Style, some of the articles you have created are not formatted correctly. Thanks! - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Khan Article I'll accept a little credit for your compliments on the Khan article here. I'm rather pleased with the rewrite I started, but it only worked as well as it did because it's the single best (self-contained) story in Trek, I think. It was an easy job. (But fun). Not so easy was my attempt to tackle the Human history article. That's the first article (after an attempt to summarize ST:TMP) that made me throw my hands up in defeat. I noticed you're giving it a whirl, and I wish you luck. I'll poke my nose in later -- maybe I can agitate a little help, like you did with Khan this morning! --Aurelius Kirk 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC) :*Feel free! I think you have an excellent writing style and good grasp of the material and point of view. I first wanted to chuck Human history out entirely, not quite seeing the need. I was talked out of that, and encouraged, instead, to fix the problems I saw. I'm actually rather pleased with the result, but please let me know if there are structural or informational problems with it. Aholland 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Howdy Randy, I noticed the "suspended animation" edit just now. You're right, that phrase was used by Kirk & crew in Space Seed. I deliberately used "cryogenic freeze" because that's how Khan described it in ST:TWOK, and I was trying to use his POV as much as possible. No, I don't have a big problem with the change, but I do think his (less formal) phrase is more colorful and descriptive. What do you think? --Aurelius Kirk 02:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC) ::Hi! I modified it because the citation for the paragraph was to "Space Seed", so I thought in terms of that episode's source material. I had honestly forgotten about TWOK's term. You could put both in (as in "suspended animation or, as Khan later described it 'cryogenic freeze'") if you want to cite both TOS and TWOK at the end of the paragraph. Or if you really like the "freeze" you can keep it, just make sure TWOK is cited for it. I have no problem either way, so long as the resource is noted (so busybodies like me don't change it around again!) Aholland 02:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Proposed Canon Policy Howdy. At first glance through your proposal, I noticed what I think is a minor error: (e.g., Frakes in “All Good Things” and Frakes in “The Pegasus”). I think you meant ENT: "These Are the Voyages..." rather than TNG: "All Good Things". I haven't digested the rest, but I will. It looks comprehensive and useful. --Aurelius Kirk 08:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC) *Thanks! You are right - that is exactly what I meant. Aholland 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC) :I'm not exactly sure whether to put that here or on the Canon policy talk page, but this can be moved later, if necessary. Anyway, while most of the suggestion looks good, I still see some problems with the details, including but not restricted to: :*Subsection "Episodes": Articles should not be created for subjects that don't appear in any Episode. - "appearing" would need to be defined. Perhaps rephrase this to refer to the later section about "valid resources". :*Subsection "Valid resources": Closed-captioned dialogue - CC is often done independently of the original production and has turned out as being completely wrong several times already. As it only "helps" with understanding the spoken dialogue (1) anyway, I suggest completely removing this, or if deemed necessary, move it to the "Restricted validity" section (but after the episode scripts). :*Subsection "Restricted Validity Resources": style description in the introductory paragraph - ways to format background information are (or should be) mentioned somewhere else, it might be better to just link to that part of our Manual of Style instead of repeating it here. :*Subsection "Non-canon Resources": Again, suggest to refer to the Manual of Style. Is the "Apocrypha" section that is often used mentioned there, somewhere? If not, it probably should... :*Subsection "Conflicts in Valid Resources": This describes a departure from existing, though inofficial, behaviour and is the main reason for my dislike of the suggested "levels of validity". So far, when two equally valid resources (=both from an aired episode, whether spoken or just shown) contradict each other, we tried to simply make note of that contradiction, but otherwise still treat both as "valid". What is described here is some way of "picking&choosing" one resource over the other, AKA "creating real canon". This should not be done. :*Subsection "Demotion of Valid Resources": obvious jokes - would need to be defined more clearly. "Anime references" do not necessarily make a resource invalid (we even have Nausicaans), there are several articles for production staff guys appearing on some list already, etc. Points 2 and 3 - production errors of any kind could better be moved to section "Tolerance in ...", I think. :*Subsection "Demotion of Scenes or Episodes": in extraordinary circumstances ... it can be noted ... as potentially invalid information. - No. No episode or scene should ever be considered "invalid information". : -- Cid Highwind 13:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC) :*Thanks; I've incorporated your ideas (I think), with one sort-of exception that I've noted as italics in the draft. Take a look and let me know your thoughts. Aholland 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC) :Your example there is a constructed one, of course, but it nicely shows the problem arising from such levels of validity. If one resource states that "the screen is blue" and another one states that "the screen is red", why should we prefer one over the other, and can there even be a defined "order of importance" in all cases? :If a red screen can be seen throughout the episode and it is mentioned as being blue only once, we should probably go with "red". If there's talk about it being blue all the time and we only see it once, it should perhaps be "blue". If it is an important plot point that the screen is green, we should use that and not the other colors. On the other hand, if something is that convoluted, it might be best not to pick any of the possibilities, but to just state the fact that "a screen exists", and move all those conflicting descriptions to a background note... ;) -- Cid Highwind 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC) ::As is typical, Cid's comments are both thoughtful and clear. But I must, respectfully, disagree as to one point. I think a real example would better illustrate my point. In episode after episode we understand from spoken dialogue that Kirk's middle initial is "T". Yet in TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before" it is shown visually (clearly!) to be "R". This is a conflict. For an in-universe article to say the character name is "James Kirk", but relegate his middle initial and name to a background section because of that conflict doesn't seem in keeping with the conceit of the Trek Universe being something capable of coherent description. In my suggested approach, the conflict would have to be noted in the article, but an archivist could - within policy - say in the body of the article that the middle initial is T, R, or just put the whole thing into background (especially if there is great controversy over it). Same thing if the situation were reversed (we always saw T in writing, but we heard it as R once in dialogue). I am not currently advocating an ability for someone to say it has to be one or the other if the resources are both valid; the level of validity is more guidance as to what to choose from to create a sensible article if conflicts exist within otherwise valid resources. ::Perhaps we could say that "multiple" conflicts have to result in all the data being in the background, but that "infrequent or single" conflicts can be simply noted as setoff text in the body of the article, with a preference usually given to higher levels? With, perhaps, frequency of occurance being another element to throw in the hopper for increasing the validity of something in the event of a conflict? Aholland 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Minor suggestion Just a minor suggestion to your short policy summary: instead of simply saying "everything that appeared," I think it would be best if we specified "everything seen and heard." Like I said, it's only minor. What do you think? :) --From Andoria with Love 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC) *Sounds fine to me. Aholland 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Alternative Canon Policy Suggestion Aholland, I like your work on the canon policy, however I have made an alternative suggestion that is shorter, more concise, and fits with my understanding of what Memory Alpha tolerates on my user page. If you would like to offer suggestions or comments about my proposal, just do so on my talk page or on the canon policy talk page. I don't mean to step on your toes, but I think the more alternatives the better.--Tim Thomason 00:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Element Numbers and weights I noticed your recent change to Ytterbium regarding its atomic number conflict with Potatoeium. I'd like to point out that Potatoeium has an atomic "weight" (or ATM WT) of 70 not atomic number. It was one of the reasons I changed the element pages in the first place. As it stands there is no other element with the number 70, so that shouldn't be noted. I mentioned this here because I believe you might have done this before, and might accidentally do it again, so it's just a heads up.--Tim Thomason 16:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :You are correct; my error. Aholland 16:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC) User:Aholland/Law to Law/temp I think you might be adding too much real-world info to your User:Aholland/Law subpage, but it's a draft, and that's an argument for another day. I don't necessarily agree with Vedek Dukat's assertion that this material belongs on a personal sub-page, as I have had my fair share of /temp pages with no problems (Klingonese/temp, Element/temp, World War III/temp). Do you wish to have sub-page moved to "Law/temp" or "Law/TEMP?" (Also, extreme apologies for accidentally posting this on your user page.)--Tim Thomason 23:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC) :I've no problem having it moved - I just needed a working space; thanks for the thought, though. No problem on where you post notes either. And I agree with you on the draft so far; but I needed to collect my thoughts first and then condense, summarize, and cut. Give it a little time, then check back and see if it is coming along or not. Aholland 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Human history Great job on the Human history page! I entirely reworked it quite a while ago, and I most certainly think your rewrite lives up to our standards. Well done. Ottens 21:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC) :Thank you! I appreciate the comment very much. Aholland 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Catching up on a few things Howdy Randy... Re: Romulan Star Empire, Whups... I forgot this one. Yeah, I have a quibble with that wording, "Alpha Quadrant" for one, but it's born from some problems deeper inside the article. If you can hold off a couple hours to let me finish something else, I think I can come up with a better intro all-together, and maybe start on addressing the issues in the rest of the article. There's a minor thing I've come across on a few rewrites I'm now juggling -- I haven't been able to avoid it, but it's starting to bug me. Is there a more descriptive and elegant term than "major power" to describe the galactic super-governments? Perhaps not, but I hope maybe your legal vocabulary has an alternative. I'll second Ottens' compliment above. I went through Human history again recently and think it's a fine job. So good, I think a transplant could put some life into another article. Your paragraph on "Humanity and the Federation" is right on, but I notice the bullets points are all the accomplishments of Starfleet (understandably). How do you feel about moving those points over to the Starfleet article as the core of a new history sub-section that we could build on, and leaving behind a line about the human dominance/prominince in the fleet? I'll try to think of non-Starfleet humans who influenced the UFP, to help replenish that section. (Tristan Adams? Cyrano Jones?) Thanks for the canon/pov policy work you've done. The clarity alone will solve problems down the line we'll never be aware of, even if the arguments over points continue in perpetuity. I suspect the defense of your contribution has been more work than the policy itself, so, well-done. --Aurelius Kirk 18:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :*I stuggled with "major power" myself and, sadly, can't come up with anything better. Superpower sounded so 20th Century; Galacticpower sounded too clunky; Powerful Political Entity sounded too V'ger-ish. So I just gave up and went with "major". No problem holding off for as long as you want. I was just reviewing stuff I had commented on awhile back and thought I'd shake that tree a bit. :*I'm okay with moving the points you mention over to Starfleet from Human History if you think they are better classified there, with the link to Starfleet preserved in History, I assume? I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to find extra content, though. I think it could read just fine (with links reinserted, of course) as: :::The Federation, as a body, was not involved in the Earth-Romulan War. (TOS: "Balance of Terror") However, after that war humanity’s history and that of the Federation go hand in hand. The Earth Starfleet grew into the military and exploratory arm of the Federation known as simply "Starfleet" by the 23rd Century. The Federation president’s office was on Earth. (DS9: "Homefront", "Paradise Lost"; "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country") Political crises and conflicts that involved the Federation drew humanity in, and vice versa. In fact, by the late 23rd Century Human involvement in Federation matters was so extensive that it prompted at least one Klingon to claim in 2293 that the Federation was little more than "a 'homo sapiens' only club." (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country). The interactions with other interstellar civilizations and species were a boon to humankind, and by the 24th Century most humans considered that they had turned their home planet from a world of conflict and strife into a paradise. (DS9: "What You Leave Behind"). :*You are right about defending Canon/POV work - it is much harder than text on the policies themselves! I'm glad someone appreciates the effort. I, too, hope it helps allow people to concentrate more on actual content. Someday. :) Aholland 18:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Efrosians I responded to your inquiry on citing sources that "Efrosian" was a behind-the-scenes name used by the makeup department on Star Trek IV, and that to find any type of resource to cite might take time. Besides the obvious correlation of Mel Efros, who worked on the film production staff when this species was being created, I was informed by someone who i know only as "The Mighty Monkey of Mim" on a messageboard that this was derived from backstage information, and therefore would be the "official" name of the species. I responded that it would take time to locate a reference, which I don't really know where to find right now. Then you responded again, asking the same question about half-a-day later. I'm not sure if you even read my responses, but I suggested we leave the article alone until such data could be located. Since the name was used in the FASA role-playing game, the writers there might've received some sort of source material from the studio, as its likely they didnt name the species themselves. By trying to create a circular discussion, you seem to be either intent on removing the article, which I stated should not be done, or simply wasting my time. Shran has stated that there might be a magazine article which can confirm the data, and I am still waiting for confirmation of this. It might mean that I have to find and buy the magazine in question, or send letters to people who have access to archives of Star Trek IV production sketches and background information -- not all of which is officially published, although some of it is authenticated by resellers as "official" studio collectibles (if this would satisfy you). This would involve mail, possibly months worth. I'd prefer to be taken at my word, but citing sources is important, so I'm trying to bear with you, although I'm a little upset you didn't have anything to say about my responses. I haven't seen you suggest any useful avenues of research. Besides ignoring my response that this information exists, and restating the question of "where's the citation", are you planning to delete the article, or contribute to it? -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 13:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :Let me be clear: I do not doubt your word in any respect. I fully believe that you were told that about the Efrosian name - no question about it. :My basic concern is that we not have data on here that is based on anything other than sources that someone can pick up, see, or hear themselves. Otherwise someone (not you, but possibly "The Mighty Monkey of Mim") could just make something up, say they heard it from a legitimate source, and "poof", it becomes the basis for an article. If there is a permitted resource that claims Efrosian as a name for this species, my sole contribution to the article would be to place that citation in there (probably noted as non-canon depending on the source, but there nonetheless). It could be a script, a graphic, a Star Trek Encyclopedia article, Startrek.com, notes from the production staff that are reproduced somewhere, any of a number of permitted things. However, if there is no permitted resource for the name, I would propose that the content of the article stay, that the title be changed or lumped with unnamed aliens, and that the name "Efrosian" be put into Background or Apocrypha. Otherwise we will just be making this stuff up as we go along and pretending it is accurate, which isn't the intent of the site. :I have no problem waiting for research to be done; I simply assumed - incorrectly as it turns out - that your addition was the full fruit of that research. And for that, I apologize. Aholland 14:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Constitution/Fed Charter Hey there. Just wanted to compliment you on the job you did with the Constitution of the United Federation of Planets and the Federation Charter articles. I was planning on working on the latter one myself in the near future (removing the "sometimes called the Constitution" and what-not), but I see you beat me to it. Good job. :) --From Andoria with Love 16:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :Thanks! Just a by-product of my research into my massive Law article. I'm in the data gathering phase for that still and will have to reorganize, edit, truncate - all that good stuff. It'll be awhile, but it is an enjoyable experience thus far. Aholland 16:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Creating redirects Hi. You can create a redirect by simply editing an article so that the only text it contains is: #REDIRECT Redirect_Target (where "Redirect_Target" obviously is the article you want the redirect to point to). If we're merging articles (one of them getting deleted), we sometimes have to do a little more, including temporary deleting one of the articles to merge the individual edit histories - but since this is apparently getting rewritten at the same time, just putting a redirect link there should be enough. -- Cid Highwind 17:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :Thanks! I somehow had it in my mind that only administrators were permitted to do that; kinda like deletions. I appreciate knowing how. Aholland 17:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC) USS Chekov In repsonse to your comments about the Chekov being non-canon. I showed you a picture of the Chekov, with its registry readable. You removed it from the page at talk:USS Chekov. If you are going to continue either ignoring what i say or obstructing my efforts to cite the source, I don't see how I can continue discussing this with you -- i'm quite frustrated already -- and despite the fact that I directed you to the page that picture was on, and then placed it on the talk page, you seem to be deliberately avoiding the issue that the model pictured was the one used in the episode. USS Chekov reconstruction I wasn't directly involved with interviewing Okuda, but I did help Bernd Schneider and the others credited on that website analyze that data. The reason that photo is under a strict copyright is because it is derived from an actual studio source that wishes to maintain publication options on the photo. We have numerous examples of information that wasn't readable onscreen, but was readable in a piece of set or model photography verified to be from the studio. For example, Mike Sussman himself provided us with clear readable photos of the NX-01 dedication plaque -- it wasn't readable onscreen, but its being used here -- i think the Enterprise dedication plaque as well as the USS Chekov is acceptable as article information here. I don't think any of this data is invalid -- and i'd like you to actually express a clear answer here addressed to me instead of ignoring me or obstructing the issue further. many archivists feel that information like this is acceptable, and has been part of the status quo here for years. In short, i just don't think you've given me any good reason to change that status quo, even if you've managed to sneak things like this into policy pages (i know i'm not the only archivist who feels you lack patience in waiting for the rest of the community to sound off, i believe another admin feels you've been rushing these discussions along instead of marking pages that need attention and waiting for the attention to be given). I support adding more detailed citations to these items (i feel you are correct in that we should explicitly specify the source for all data, whether dialogue or behind-the-scenes model analysis), but i feel they must be kept. If we didn't try to examine these models, plaques, computer readouts and such, we would be failing in our jobs as archivists aiming to expand knowledge and provide in depth information, rather than just rehashing the Star Trek Encyclopedia (one of our original precepts was to not duplicate the Encyclopedia, but to go further. You're suggesting just the opposite). Thank you for your time. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :Let me address your points one at a time. :The Registry. You pointed me to ex-astris scientia, which has a photo of a model with a registry of NCC-57302. The registry number is, indeed, clear and distinct. What is missing is an equally clear and distinct name. Chekov, Chekhov, or something else. It just isn't visible. It has to be visible and accessible to average people or the site degenerates into little more than "it's right - trust me." Good archivists, even as to things that truly matter in this world, never accept that at face value. Neither should we. :The Analysis. I do not accept the conclusion at ex-astris scientia that the smudge on the viewscreen was that model. Even the text of the analysis notes discrepancies. It could potentially be the model, but it just isn't clear. :Other Photos. I accept that clear photos of sets, models, props, etc. are fine as permitted resources. Provide a clear photo of a USS Chekov that matches the smudge and I'll be happy to back away from the point. :Sneaking Things In. I have no clue how to respond to that - frankly - rather insulting remark. I have acted in all matters here with forthrightness, honesty, and full disclosure. :Not Waiting. I feel I am acting timely, but not overly swiftly. And it's not as though someone cannot respond to a change I make a day, week, month or even year after I make it - that's the blessing and curse of a wiki isn't it? I don't work well with generalities; do you have a specific example of something so I can better understand what you interpret as too fast? :Examining Data. The canon policy that existed on this site before I suggested my redraft was clear: it was seen clearly in an episode or it was out. The new one codified existing practices - mostly. It's the fringe stuff like ships never mentioned, or barely seen and which require forensic photo analysis to even begin to propose data on that is at issue. A line has to be drawn, and the one I suggested was looser than what was there before. It allows for analysis of clear information, but does not permit unlimited supposition and creation of information where none exists. :Rehashing. This site does far more than the Encyclopedia did. It provides information relationships, permits longer articles on individual topics, and permits some inclusion of secondary resources to help flush out the Trek universe. But it should not be an open invitation to try to elevate to canon information which is at best conjectural. At least in my opinion. :I do appreciate your vigorously defending the USS Chekov, by the way. I am assured because of how you feel that you will provide the best data available. Whether that data is sufficient is another matter entirely. Aholland 01:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Razor Thanks for the heads-up concerning the razor article! Writing articles about regular , everyday stuff in the Star Trek universe is just as much fun as writing articles about alien species and starships, in my experience.--Jörg 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Re: So What's To Be Done? I had thought that the current canon policy would make things easier around here. I appear to have been wrong. There seems to be a movement among some of the more vocal people to allow everything in as sources - scripts, deleted lines, interviews, other websites, etc. - with very few exceptions. Is that really the way this place is going to go? If so, I'll probably abandon it and allow the fanon to simply take over; it isn't worth my time to spend hours defending the primacy of episodes as seen over all else. If not, is there anything that can be done to stop the madness and get the site back to what it has the ability to become: the sole source on the web for verifiable, accurate data on Trek as seen on TV (and movies), with clear distinctions made for what is NOT seen on TV? I fear given the rabid nature of some that the pain of getting is "right" won't be worth it, but would appreciate your - always sensible - thoughts on it. Thanks. Aholland 05:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC) :You know, this is probably not the response you'd like to hear, but I don't really know what to do, either. In my opinion, the suggested new canon policy essentially captured most of the current code of conduct, some of which was definitely outside of what the old policy allowed (meaning the new one allows more than the old one). Discussion about the "content" of that new policy seemed to have died down mostly, while some "stylistic issues" remained and could have been solved independently. :It's just when the new policy was started to be enforced (just as the old one could have been enforced) that some people started questioning all of it - I believe that this is in fact not a problem with the new policy, but a problem with someone finally taking the time to question articles in regard to these policies - something I did, too, in the past, but mostly gave up at some point. :If there's now some initiative to allow even more "secondary" and "less-canon" resources than either of the two policies define, and this suggestion even gets community consensus, I think I'm out as well. Before that happens, I'll just post a suggestion to the current discussion on MA:TF and see where that might take us - if the madness continues, I'll just take a back seat for a week or two before deciding whether this all is still worth it. -- Cid Highwind 12:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC) ::Yeah, you're right - not what I had hoped to hear. Thanks for your thoughts, though. I look forward to your suggestion, and will probably also lay low a bit and see where things come out. Aholland 12:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Hey I don't always agree with you and I think you often take arguments to the extream, but I like the work you do around here. You keep this place on its toes and it would be a loss if you were to quit. Jaf 05:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf ::Thanks! I don't want to quit; I want to contribute (and question!) But when 95% of my effort is spent trying to convince people that information not seen on screen is fundamentally different from that actually seen on screen, I have to seriously think whether it is worth it. I'll see how it plays out, but I appreciate the note very much. Aholland 05:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Hello again. I was going to bring this up at Talk:Efrosian, but I thought I'd say it to you directly. You seem to be alone in wanting this site to have any kind of mandate. The majority of regular contributors want to deal with articles on a page by page basis, irrespective of what is and what is not an acceptable source. I think this is because this site opens up the startrek universe by giving them more data and they don't want that data taken away by becoming "non-canon". I support your attempt to legitimize this project, but we are in the minority. In fact besides Cid, I think we might be the only two who feel this way and therefore cannot hope to possibly bring about such a change. I'm sorry. Jaf 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf :Hey back! You may be right on your reading - I hadn't thought of it quite that way. But I can be very stubborn if I choose! :) I think Efrosian will be a good test; it is clearly outside of policy and is clearly just plain "wrong". If that stays then the site has little hope of intellectual honesty or integrity. So I'm going to play that out for a bit and try to get the right direction on it. Keep in mind it sometimes just takes two or three people to effect change for the good. Aholland 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Question on Patent Drawings :::Is uploading a "patent" image allowable under current policies? i'm not sure .. if only someone had been willing to support some sort of "research policy", clarifying how we could establish and use data from sources not contained in episodes or movies -- i know you wouldn't hear of such a thing, however... it might have been a change for good in concern of the mandate of the site and push for legitimizing the data. whatev. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::United States patents are, once issued, in the public domain. Therefore people can do anything they want to with them. Also, given that the patent article will be a Trek Franchise article rather than a Trek Universe article, the canon policy restrictions we've recently discussed don't even apply. I am uncertain how much more legitimate a full citation to a publically available document can be, but let me know if you have any concerns about the images. Aholland 05:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::Well, how do i know they are from a US patent? anyone can make a black-and-white line drawing, Mr. Holland. Is there any policy on research through which you can verify these are the patents as numbered? -- Captain M.K.B. 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :Forgive me, but one does not need a policy to know how and whether to independently verify data. Or determine originally if the data is authentic. The former is everyone's choice; the latter the responsibility of the author. If you have any questions about the patent images, though, please input the patent number into the website that will be at the bottom of the article once finished. (It is still in draft, but I think a link is there now.) You'll be able to validate each one if you wish. Or you could alternatively contact the U.S. Patent Office if you don't believe the website. Again, please let me know if you need help doing this validation; I'll be happy to show you how. Aholland 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::Just show me how? why not write a policy on it in case someone besides you or me wants to know about the data. or should we personally explain to everyone how to find the info? -- Captain M.K.B. 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :Are you actually proposing that a policy exist that informs everyone how to validate, for themselves, every fact that can be claimed in any article on any subject? That is neither feasible nor practical. If you achieve it, though, you should probably copyright it immediately as libaries will want to use it. As before, there will be a citation for each patent. There will be a link at the end of the article so people can get copies of the patents - for free - if they want. If they don't want to that's fine too. I put the link there not so much to validate the data as to allow people to get something rather cool for free. But it will be very self-evident how to look one up - and if someone can get to MA at all, they can use that patent site. If you still think this too difficult for a reader, please explain how a policy will help. Aholland 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::Are you actually proposing that a policy exist that informs everyone how to validate, for themselves, every fact that can be claimed in any article on any subject? -- you yourself have suggested removal of data on these grounds (i.e. not everyone can read the registry number). I just think it would be nice to regulate how this data gets verified. You've shown yourself to be in opposition to the , and you've repeatedly stated few reasons except that (you feel) it threatens your pet . :I, respectfully, disagree. I have never proposed a single way to verify data. I am incapable of describing all ways to verify data. I can only say when, under certain identified circumstances, I am personally unable to verify data. In such a case I'm happy to be told how I can personally verify it. :And I apologize if my opposition to the proposed research policy has been less than clear. Let me restate. There are no circumstances I can envision where the existence of a general policy on how to validate something would help me actually do so. And if it is not telling me how, then it is telling me what, which conflicts with existing policy. So unneeded and conflicting. Those are my reasons for objecting to it. But please feel free to ask again if that isn't clear enough. And my offer to help you validate the patents is still open, should you see the need. Aholland 06:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Design Patents I was really impressed with this page. Its so well written, the pithy comments are really amusing! :-) Thanks for making me smile. Zsingaya 17:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :Thank you! It was a lot of fun to work on too. Aholland 17:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::I agree, this is wonderfully done. You have proven that you can simultaneously defend yourself on various talk pages while contributing to unique articles, if only your critics could all be as productive. Jaf 20:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf User pages and Talk Pages I noticed you just left a comment on TOSrules User page. Did you mean to leave it on his User Talk page? Jaz talk | novels 18:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :Yes. (*Hangs head in shame*) I'll fix it up, thanks! Aholland 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)